SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Issue: 2

Analysis of Chemistry Questions in Ministry of National Education Achievement Tests Using the Essential Questions–Perspectives Framework: A Study Combined with Bloom's Taxonomy

MEB Kazanım Testlerindeki Kimya Sorularının Temel Sorular–Perspektifler Çerçevesi Kullanılarak Analizi: Bloom Taksonomisi ile Birleştirilmiş Bir Çalışma

Gülen Önal Karakoyun(YÜZÜNCÜ YIL ÜNİVERSİTESİ, MURADİYE MESLEK YÜKSEKOKULU, KİMYA VE KİMYASAL İŞLEME TEKNOLOJİLERİ BÖLÜMÜ, LABORATUVAR TEKNOLOJİSİ PR.)0000-0002-7675-0006
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-03-09
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

As a result of the analysis made by combining EQ-P and Bloom Taxonomy, it was determined that all of the questions related to the D&I category were in the recall dimension of the cognitive process dimensions of Bloom Taxonomy.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aimed to examine the distribution and representation of chemical reasoning in questions related to chemistry topics included in the 6th, 7th, and 8th grade Science achievement tests prepared by the Ministry of National Education of the Republic of Turkey, using the Essential Questions-Perspectives (EQ-P) framework.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The study also aimed to analyze the aforementioned chemistry questions by combining the EQ-P framework and the Bloom taxonomy.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:As a result of the analysis made by combining EQ-P and Bloom Taxonomy, it was determined that all of the questions related to the D&I category were in the recall dimension of the cognitive process dimensions of Bloom Taxonomy.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Science Education · Essential Questions Perspective Framework · Chemical Reasoning

Abstract

This study aimed to examine the distribution and representation of chemical reasoning in questions related to chemistry topics included in the 6th, 7th, and 8th grade Science achievement tests prepared by the Ministry of National Education of the Republic of Turkey, using the Essential Questions-Perspectives (EQ-P) framework. The study also aimed to analyze the aforementioned chemistry questions by combining the EQ-P framework and the Bloom taxonomy. The combined evaluation of the core disciplinary questions and perspectives of the EQ-P framework with the scientific process and knowledge dimensions of the Bloom taxonomy was achieved by combining these two methods. This combination also facilitated and benefited researchers in examining the relationship between the elements of the EQ-P framework and the Bloom taxonomy. As a result of the research, it was determined that the most questions among the chemistry questions were related to the basic question of explanation and prediction (E&P). As a result of the research, it was determined that there were chemistry questions related to the basic question of description and identification (D&I) among the chemistry questions, however, there were no questions related to the (T&S) category. This indicates that there are more chemistry questions that measure students' ability to establish cause-effect relationships, make predictions, and explain chemical events. As a result of the analysis made by combining EQ-P and Bloom Taxonomy, it was determined that all of the questions related to the D&I category were in the recall dimension of the cognitive process dimensions of Bloom Taxonomy.

🔖

Cite This Article

Karakoyun, G. Ö. (2026). Analysis of Chemistry Questions in Ministry of National Education Achievement Tests Using the Essential Questions–Perspectives Framework: A Study Combined with Bloom's Taxonomy. Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Issue: 2. https://doi.org/10.14686/buefad.1768192

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (36)

  1. Bensaude-Vincent, B. (2009). The chemists’ style of thinking. Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte, 32(4), 365–378. https://doi.org/10.1002/bewi.200901385
  2. Bensaude-Vincent, B., & Simon, J. (2008). Chemistry: The impure science. Imperial College Press. https://doi.org/10.4000/developpementdurable.8216
  3. Breslow, R. (1997). Chemistry today and tomorrow: The central, useful, and creative science. American Chemical Society. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed074p1050
  4. Brigandt, I. (2013). Explanation in biology: Reduction, pluralism, and explanatory aims. Science & Education, 22(1), 69–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-011-9350-7
  5. Bruce, M. R., Bruce, A. E., & Walter, J. (2022). Creating representation in support of chemical reasoning to connect macroscopic and submicroscopic domains of knowledge. Journal of Chemical Education, 99(4), 1734–1746. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00292
  6. Callebaut, W. (2012). Scientific perspectivism: A philosopher of science’s response to the challenge of big data biology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 43(1), 69–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2011.10.007
  7. Chi, M., Zheng, C., & He, P. (2024). Reframing chemical thinking through the lens of disciplinary essential questions and perspectives for teaching and learning chemistry. Science & Education, 33(6), 1503–1528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-023-00438-3
  8. Chi, M., Zheng, C., & He, P. (2025). Using the lens of essential questions–perspectives to investigate the representations of chemical thinking in Chinese secondary chemistry textbooks. Research in Science Education, 55(3), 589–618. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-024-10208-y
  9. Crombie, A., & Shea, W. (1995). Styles of scientific thinking in the European tradition. Annals of Science, 52(6), 615–618. https://doi.org/10.1177/007327539503300204
  10. Eskandar, F. A., Bayrami, M., Vahedi, S., & Abdollahi Adli Ansar, V. (2013). The effect of instructional analogies in interaction with logical thinking ability on achievement and attitude toward chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(4), 566–575. https://doi.org/10.1039/c3rp00036b
  11. Freire, M., Talanquer, V., & Amaral, E. (2019). Conceptual profile of chemistry: A framework for enriching thinking and action in chemistry education. International Journal of Science Education, 41(5), 674–692. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1578001
  12. Giere, R. N. (2006). Scientific perspectivism. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226292144.001.0001
  13. Gilbert, J. K. (2006). On the nature of “context” in chemical education. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 957–976. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600702470
  14. Griesemer, J. (2011). Philosophy and tinkering. Biology & Philosophy, 26(2), 269–279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-008-9131-0
  15. Hintikka, J. (2007). Socratic epistemology: Explorations of knowledge-seeking by questioning. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511619298
  16. Hoffmann, R. (1995). The same and not the same. Columbia University Press.
  17. Karamustafaoğlu, S., Sevim, S., Karamustafaoğlu, O., & Çepni, S. (2003). Analysis of Turkish high-school chemistry-examination questions according to Bloom’s taxonomy. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 4(1), 25–30. https://doi.org/10.1039/b2rp90034c
  18. Kleinheksel, A. J., Rockich-Winston, N., Tawfik, H., & Wyatt, T. R. (2020). Demystifying content analysis. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 84(1), 7113. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe7113
  19. Krajcik, J. (2015). Project-based science: Engaging students in three-dimensional learning. The Science Teacher, 82(1), 25–27. https://doi.org/10.2505/4/tst15_082_01_25
  20. Landa, I., Westbroek, H., Janssen, F., van Muijlwijk, J., & Meeter, M. (2020). Scientific perspectivism in secondary-school chemistry education. Science & Education, 29(5), 1361–1388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00145-3
  21. Lithner, J. (2003). Students’ mathematical reasoning in university textbook exercises. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 52(1), 29–55. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1023683716659
  22. Marasabessy, R. (2021). Study of mathematical reasoning ability for mathematics learning in schools: A literature review. Indonesian Journal of Teaching in Science, 1(2), 79–90. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijotis.v1i2.37950
  23. McHugh, C., & Way, J. (2018). What is reasoning? Mind, 127(505), 167–196. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/fzw068
  24. Ngai, C., Sevian, H., & Talanquer, V. (2014). What is this substance? What makes it different? Mapping progression in students’ assumptions about chemical identity. International Journal of Science Education, 36(14), 2438–2461. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.927082
  25. Rips, L. J. (1990). Reasoning. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 321–353. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.41.1.321
  26. Seo, Y. J., Kim, H. S., & Chae, H. K. (2010). Analysis of the end-of-chapter questions in Chemistry II according to revised Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 54(3), 329-337. https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2010.54.3.329
  27. Sevian, H., & Talanquer, V. (2014). Rethinking chemistry: A learning progression on chemical thinking. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(1), 10–23. https://doi.org/10.1039/c3rp00111c
  28. Sternberg, R. J., & Williams, W. M. (2002). Educational psychology. Allyn & Bacon.
  29. Taber, K. S., & García-Franco, A. (2010). Learning processes in chemistry: Drawing upon cognitive resources to learn about the particulate structure of matter. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(1), 99–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400903452868
  30. Talanquer, V. (2011). Macro, submicro, and symbolic: The many faces of the chemistry “triplet.” International Journal of Science Education, 33(2), 179–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903386435
  31. Talanquer, V. (2021). Multifaceted chemical thinking: A core competence. Journal of Chemical Education, 98(11), 3450–3456. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00785
  32. Tomasevic, B., & Trivic, D. (2014). Creativity in teaching chemistry: How much support does the curriculum provide? Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(2), 239–252. https://doi.org/10.1039/c3rp00116d
  33. Van Berkel, B., De Vos, W., Verdonk, A. H., & Pilot, A. (2000). Normal science education and its dangers: The case of school chemistry. Science & Education, 9(1), 123–159. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1008765531336
  34. Wan, Y., Yao, R., Li, Q., & Bi, H. (2023). Views of Chinese middle school chemistry teachers on critical thinking. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 24(1), 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1039/d2rp00237j
  35. Weinrich, M. L., & Talanquer, V. (2015). Mapping students’ conceptual modes when thinking about chemical reactions used to make a desired product. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(3), 561–577. https://doi.org/10.1039/c5rp00024f
  36. Yan, F., & Talanquer, V. (2015). Students’ ideas about how and why chemical reactions happen: Mapping the conceptual landscape. International Journal of Science Education, 37(18), 3066–3092. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1121414